incredibly narrow world view

I mean as someone who has experienced both the US and Europe I would say this applies to most everyone posting here.

And if we're going to sling insults then I'll say it's hilariously amusing how clearly fragile the egos of the people posting here are.

but some sources state that the bare minimum salary to be happy in places like Seattle, where these engineers need to be located, is around $117k/year.

Those sources also state that worldwide the number to be minimally happy is $95k. I'm going to assume Europe is at least at the global average and likely a bit above since the US on average is at $105k. So if you go by those studies then the new grad in Seattle making $120k is minimally happy while the seasoned engineer in Germany making $90k is not. Not that I agree but if we're going by the study you mentioned then that's the conclusion.

In the US I can quit a job with 0 days notice. I can also be fired from a job with 0 days notice and no severance.

That makes the job market significantly more fluid. If there is demand for a specific job compensation will go up quickly as there is no artificial buffer on people switching jobs for better pay. Supply and demand is very sensitive to small shifts in either. Companies are also not afraid of paying this compensation since worst case they'll just do some layoffs.

If a US company has some employees in Europe then they still have a benefit from all this so they can pay more than a purely European company. If they need to cut costs they can fire the expensive US employees first and then adjust the Europe comp more slowly. If they need to grow quickly they can do so in the US and then slowly shift to Europe.

edit: The profit margins of US tech companies are also massive as they have relatively little regulation, taxes or bureaucracy. Goggle makes $2 MILLION/employee/year. So no risk of not making record profits by paying an extra $200k.

You're right. But half this conversation is a bunch of people using random US stereotypes and downvoting anyone who says otherwise. Cost of living is fairly irrelevant when you've got an extra $200k/year post-tax to play with. And any company paying that much will give you really nice benefits including fully coverage health insurance and possibly a on-call concierge to help if you have any issues. Being poor in the US is really miserable but I also know people who can't see a doctor in Europe due to waiting lists (or their GP blocking it) and lack of money for private insurance. Neither case matters if you're an engineer. And France has the same rate of homelessness as California so neither has a happy community on average.

45% is the absolute highest tax rate you can currently get we have higher social security Expenditures as well,

So it's higher than 45% in reality (for example I believe at $100k the social contributions would be twice as much as the tax). That 27% for California includes everything. If those taxes are worth it are a separate issue.

No, taxes are basically the same,

Source? Everything I've read indicates Europe has 15-20% more taxes for the same income. The tax rate in California for $100k would be 27% (total) and a 7% sales tax. Europe seems to be in the 45-50% range depending on the country and a roughly 20% VAT. Even the tax rate in California on $400k would be lower than the tax rate in Europe on $100k.

I mean you don't have to constantly job hunt but you have the option of doing so if you want to maximize money. And enough people doing so raises the compensation for everyone even if they don't job hunt constantly.

In my experience managing a large project comes down to having a consistent process/standards and enough experienced engineers in that language. Remove that and every single language leads to abominations.

In my sad experience, you don't but simply try to avoid getting caught in the blast radius of it failing. Someone approved/supported the project and someone approved/supported the sunk cost that already went into it. Those people have more power than you and they will not like looking bad due to you.

I would say part of being truly efficient in any role is being able to do the role efficiently even in less than ideal situations or with less than ideal coworkers.

In my personal experience significantly more people think they don't react emotionally than actually don't react emotionally so it's better to support each other than trying to inefficiently turn into machine together.

Got it. I would say respect is good but don't come off as too un-emotional since that might signal this isn't important for you. Showing you're upset at the situation is not a bad thing as long as you keep it in check and don't go off on a 10+ minute rant. A seasoned manager is used to people offloading emotionally on them so they won't take it personally (but they're also human so too much will stress them which you want to avoid). Some managers even go to the point of classifying the different kinds/phases of emotional offloading: https://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-update-the-vent-and-the-disaster/

Potentially if the project isn't being known about for you then it's also probably not know about for your manager so you both look like you didn't achieve much. Given the economic climate they're probably worried about a layoff as well and having a report that isn't making them look good isn't optimal. In most companies the perception of what you do matters significantly more than what you actually do and it's even more the case for managers.

One final comment is that you probably need to build up trust with your manager. They probably don't trust you and you probably don't trust them on a personal level. In theory that's part of their job but they're the ones in power so in the end it benefits you more. One advice I heard which does in fact come off as ass kissing but is probably very beneficial in reality is to acknowledge in 1-on-1s to them the good things they did. "Hey manager, I really appreciate you giving such a thorough review of the project" or "Hey manager, thank you for pushing back so strongly on that request." Short and specific then move on.

and there’s not enough of them to merit an epic.

Why? Other than having more backlog Jira epics in the UI this seems the best approach? Put them into an Epic and once the Epic is large enough you prioritize work on it. If it never gets to that size then you can re-evaluate.

As I see it perfect is the enemy of the good in this case. Rules, official or unofficial, on the "correct way" to do things stifle growth especially when there's few contributing users. That little extra barrier is enough to keep many people from even bothering at all. You want people to be engaged and excited rather than feeling they're beholden to a bureaucracy. Or worse beholden to an existing group of power users that control things by being the first or the loudest.

I have little insight but reading that it sounds like you're weak in terms of project management and communication around projects. If people don't know you finished a project or why the project was valuable then that is a weakness on both those counts. It also doesn't seem like you understand how or why you're seen as weak in those areas.

One feedback I have had with a report was actually similar. I (and my boss) expect someone that senior to be able to be dropped onto a new project, and either get it delivered or escalate direct asks. Status updates should be concise and asks should be actionable. Not "the project is <insert issues here>, can you <insert points about sitting in a bunch of project meetings>" but "the project is <insert issues here>, can you <insert specific next action here> and make a decision on <insert specific points here>."

In my opinion this is a difference in personal preferences

As someone external to me it sounds like the message is "the company/team wants a culture of directness/bluntness versus consensus to speed up decision making. Your approach is not aligned with the culture so change it." It may also mean that while consensus with others is good the communication to your manager/skip needs to be more direct and actionable (see previous example).

I agree overall but it also depends. In this economic climate with layoffs common backstabbing is not the worst short term strategy. OP would essentially be using their accumulated political capitol to make it more likely that their manager gets the ax versus them.

The skip is most likely doing a calculation of how much OP is worth versus how much the Manager is worth to the organization. Showing too much respect means the calculation is less likely to go in OP's favor since even OP seems to see Manager in a mostly positive light.

One benefit of using rust for webservers in general is that it’s possible to have a consistently lower latency compared to GCd langues: discord mentions this in their article about migrating to rust from go: https://discord.com/blog/why-discord-is-switching-from-go-to-rust

What about the user problem that Lemmy is solving requires such low latency? Discord is a real time chat service. Lemmy is not. Not saying the overall performance improvements (ie: cost to run an instance) aren't in Rust's favor but pointing to latency seems odd to me.

Most every language in use gets pretty constant new releases so is effectively modern. So not sure why the criteria should be a hype language versus simply the best language for the job (performance level, dev time, dev availability, etc.).

Conceptually, this is the outcome of companies owned by those who wish to maximize their investment. Eventually organic growth slows and it's time to squeeze more juice from the lemons they already have even if they need a hydraulic press to do it. The flip side is that without that investment money these platforms would probably not exist at the scale users are used to. It'll be interesting to see if the fediverse manages to scale well or not.

For context, my answers are in regards to growing companies versus those past that stage that now get more value from focusing on pure optimizations. I've found that approaches which work for the latter actually hurts growing companies and vice versa.

At some point, you must agree on who is responsible for what instead of everyone being accountable for everything.

In my experience splitting into teams of 6-8 people and then assigning focus areas to teams works fairly well. Assuming you split in a way where teams are not blocking each other the vast majority of the time.

Do you have any ideas about how to use metrics to help align with a vision?

I was thinking more of business metrics which may or may not tie into vision. What metrics does the business care about (customers, revenue per customer, customer sentiment, fraud reports, etc.) and why do you think each team helps those metrics? A team may be supporting other teams but otherwise they should be pushing forward some business metric you care about and are measuring. If you're not measuring it then how do you know the business is actually doing better or worse in an area (or that a team is helping)?